-:  ORDER  :-

( Passed on dated 23 January, 2015)

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant’s father Govind Agrawal applied for 40 HP connections under LTP Consumer category for running parboiling plant on 19.04.1999.  The opponent accepted the application and granted sanction on 15.11.1999 vide letter no. EEG/T/LS/488.  As per the terms of sanction the Complainant’s father deposited Rs. 38,420/- vide receipt no. 3378531.  Amount of Rs. 20,000/- is Security Deposit included in the said amount of Rs. 38,420/-.

2.            The complainant closed the said business and therefore applied for permanent disconnection of the supply by its letter dated 23.12.2011 and requested to refund Rs. 17,220/- after making adjustment of Rs. 2,780/- outstanding arrears for the period of November 2011.

3.            The supply was discontinued, but refund was not given and therefore complainant once again made a request for refund of the security deposit vide its letter dated 14.02.2011.

4.            The opponent should have given credit of the RLC charges to the complainant.  But opponent failed to refund the said amount.

5.            The complainant is a PD consumer and is eligible to receive refund of RLC charges as per the direction of the Hon’ble Commission failed to receive the refund of the same and is therefore deficiency in the services of the opponent.

6.            The cause of action arises in the month of Jan. 2012 when the refund was not made as per application dated 23.12.2011 and therefore the complaint is within limitation period.

7.            It is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to direct opposite party to refund outstanding security deposit Rs. 17,220/- along with interest @ 15% p.a., direct opposite party to refund entire Regulatory Liability Charge as per direction of the Hon’ble Commission along with 15% interest, direct opposite party to furnish the calculation of the RLC so refunded, direct opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental harassment.

8.            After receiving the notice issued by the Forum, the O.P. appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement before the forum. 

9.            In their reply, the O. P. accepted that the father of complainant Govind Agrawal had applied for 40 HP electric connections for running parboiling plant on dated 19.04.1999.  It is also not disputed that as per sanction order, Shri Govind Agrawal had deposited demand amount for fresh electric connection including security deposit Rs.20,000/-.  It is not disputed that electric connection IP-302, consumer No. 43277005148 issued in the name of Shri. Govind Agrawal.

              The alleged connection was standing in the name of Shri. Govind Agrawal till permanent disconnection.  The complainant had never applied for change of name and there is no contract between complainant and opposite party, as such the complainant is not consumer of opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that count alone in the limine.

              It is not disputed that on application dated 23.12.2011 of recorded consumer Shri Govind Agrawal for permanent disconnection of electric connection, the connection came to be disconnected in the month of Feb. 2012 after completion of procedure.  It is submitted that the opposite party was and is ready to refund the security deposit to recorded consumer  by deducting outstanding amount Rs.6,835/- but as the recorded consumer failed to produce the original receipt of security deposit or indemnity bond which is condition precedent for refund of security deposit, hence the refund was not made till today.  That, even the recorded consumer failed to comply letter dated 25.02.2013 issued by opposite party.

              The RLC charges was refunded to the recorded by giving credit to consumer on monthly bill.  The RLC charges Rs. 362.40/-, 80.40/-, 242.50/-, 577/-, 332/- and Rs. 50/- was credited in the bill from February 2000 to April 2006 and at present no RLC charges is outstanding against the opposite party.

              It is submitted that the opposite party was and is ready to refund the security deposit to recorded consumer by deducting outstanding amount Rs. 6,835/- but as the recorded consumer failed to produce the original receipt of security deposit or indemnity bond which is condition precedent for refund of security deposit, hence the refund was not made till today.

10.                   The complainant has filed Annexure-A at page no. 12 & 13, Annexure-B at page no. 14, Annexure -C at page no. 15 & 16, Annexure -D at page no. 17, Application for amendment in the name of the complainant at page no. 18.

11.                   The complainant argued that, as a legal heir & successor and beneficiary of electricity the complainant having locus standi to receive all dues from opposite party.  Therefore necessary application along with formalities were completed with opposite party.  The opposite party has failed to refund Security Deposit.  They had never demanded original receipt of security deposit or indemnity bond.  The complainant has submitted original security deposit receipt No. 3378531 dated 06.07.1999 for Rs. 38,420/- to fulfill the condition & requirement of opposite party.  The opposite party has not paid the R.L.C. charges and liable for action u/s 242 of Indian Electricity Act, 2002 for violation of direction of M.E.R.C. in case No. 19 of 2012 for refund of R.L.C. to P.D. consumers.  The opposite party as per table shown at page No. 31  Rs. 28,363.15 is liable to be refunded for outstanding R.L.C. charges.  Therefore complaint with cost and compensation may be allowed.

12.                   The counsel for the opposite party Adv. Mr. S. B. Rajankar argued that the complainant is not consumer.  The meter is still in the name of the father of complainant.  The complainant had never applied for change in name in electric meter.  The opposite party is ready & willing to refund the security deposit after deducting the outstanding bill of Rs. 6,835/-.  The recorded consumer failed to submit original receipt of security deposit or indemnity bond which is condition precedent for refund of security deposit.  Hence amount is not refunded.  The R.L.C. charges were refunded to the recorded consumer by giving credit to consumer on monthly bill through tariff.  The R.L.C. charges were credited in the bill from February 2000 to April 2006.  At present no R.L.C. charges are outstanding against opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.

13.                   The complaint and reply along with document filed on record & argument advanced by both parties the following points are framed for the case at my hand.

REASONING & FINDINGS

14.                   The complainant’s father Govind Agrawal had applied for 40 HP connection under LTP consumer category for running parboiling plant on 19.04.1999.  The opposite party had sanctioned the electric supply on 15.11.1999 vide letter No. EEG/T/LS/4858.  The complainant had deposited Rs. 38,420/- vide receipt No. 337853 including an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as security deposit.  The complainant is legal heir and beneficiary of business unit after the death of his father, the complainant is beneficiary of electricity.  Therefore he is beneficiary hence he is consumer.

16.                   The business small scale industry which was run by complainant is proprietary unit for earning his livelihood & he is also beneficiary as a user of electricity.  Hence the complainant being user of electricity therefore coming under the definition “Consumer” hence the complainant has locus-standi to file the complaint.  In National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 35/2004 – Accounts Officer versus Anwar Ali, Propritor, M/s. Pinki Plastics Ltd. – Commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods brought and used by him and services exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of “self employment”. 

              “Consumer” as defined under the Electricity Act will certainly be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act because he avails the services from electricity supplier/Licenser for consideration.

17.                   The complainant is legal heir of deceased Govind Agrawal.  As per submission advanced by learned counsel for opposite party & as per written statement the opposite party is ready to refund the security deposit after submitting the original deposit receipt & other necessary formalities.  It is therefore directed that the complainant shall do all necessary formalities for refund of security deposit with the opposite party within 30 days from receipt of copy of judgment and opposite party shall refund the security deposit within 30 days to the complainant. If the opposite party fails to comply the order the complainant has right to move to this forum again for redressal by filing the complaint for the cause.

18.                   As to the point No. 4.  The statement of RLC charges have been filed in this case.   According to statement the RLC charges had been rightly credited in the electric bill of complainant, hence no outstanding amount for RLC charges is receivable from opposite party.  Hence the answer to the point No. 4 is in negative.

              Therefore the Forum has passed the following order.  

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The complainant shall complete all formalities with the opposite party. After submission of documents with the opposite party, the opposite party shall refund the security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- after deducting the outstanding amount if any within 30 days from receipt of application for refund of security deposit otherwise opposite party is liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of judgment and order of this case.

3.            No order as to cost.